tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 22 15:32:41 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>From: [email protected]
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 09:52:15 -0500
> 'a ghorlaHqu' tera'ngan be', vavoy!
>I also thought of ghorrup , but that would suggest that Terran
>women are ready to break (themselves), as an intentional action,
>which is not the idea you want.
>I'm assuming that the gloss of ghor, "break", is intransitive (as
>in "the captive's fingers break") rather than transitive (as in "I
>break the captive's fingers"). I hope I haven't overlooked any
>canon that contradicts this assumption, because if ghor means
>intransitive-"break" we can easily express transitive-"break" with
>the causative suffix:
Transitivity is a known problem with Klingon; we simply don't know enough
about which words are transitive and which intransivitve from the one-word
English glosses (English is not very careful about transitivity).
>-- but there's no convenient way to do the reverse if ghor
>means transitive-"break".
I had taken "ghor" to be transitive in Jonah, and translated what in Hebrew
means "And the ship was thought to be going-to-be-broken" as "'ej Duj
ghorlu' net pIH". Who can say which is right?
~mark